Christophe Deloire, the author of Sexus politicus, speaks of pressure from DSK publicity flack, Ramzi Khiroun, not to publish, says that Hollande and Fabius both tried to prevent Tristane Banon from pressing charges, and says that many journalists knew of the allegations but did not go to print with them.

Qu'ils s'en aillent tous. The title of Jean-Luc Mélenchon's book encapcsulates a sentiment that we all share from time to time. Get rid of the lot of them. But if we followed that advice, who would manage our economic institutions? After listening to the first ten minutes of this interview with Mélenchon, I can only hope and pray that it isn't Mélenchon. To illustrate the greed of our elites, he tells us that "they raised interest rates" after the crisis and thus "served themselves again," having already made a fortune on dubious loans and credit default swaps. But in fact central banks lowered rates. To be sure, interest rates rose in countries like Greece, because their precarious financial situation made default more likely. Buyers of Greek debt disappeared, and investors tried to dump their holdings. But this rise in interest rates corresponded to a fall in the price of the bonds already held by banks, pension funds, and other institutions, so they weren't "serving themselves," as Mélenchon implies, but losing their shirts. To be sure, not everyone lost, but Mélenchon doesn't seem to understand the basics of state finance, as he illustrates in his next remark, which is to say that the European Central Bank should have "lent directly" to Greece. But it did buy Greek sovereign debt when no one else would, which gave Greece needed liquidity. How could it "lend directly" to Greece in any other way? Simply by transferring cash to Greece without taking any notes in return? Neither Mélenchon's criticism nor his remedy makes any sense. His emotion, however, is perfectly comprehensible. And that is the problem.

This is disingenuous, because when it comes to IMF policy, it's hard to say that Lagarde's "political orientation" was any different from DSK's. Perhaps there were differences, but they don't spring immediately to mind, and Hollande would be much more enlightening about his own position if he told us what he thinks they are.

At least he mentions the Tapie affair, but on the precise ways in which he thinks Lagarde might implement "the economic policy followed by France" (not further specified) at the IMF, he tells us nothing. This remains at the level of innuendo.

I agree fully with everything Éolas says. I also recommend that you read the end of his post, where he explains, from a lawyer's point of view, what "respect for the alleged victim" means. An exemplary post from this fine French jurist--as usual.

As a reward for explaining why, despite appearances, "the people" actually love their president, Prof. Maffésoli has been made a member of the Institut de France against the wishes of the selection jury:

European pols seem to have made up their minds that Christine Lagarde is the right woman to take charge of the IMF, but that pesky Crédit Lyonnais business keeps cropping up. Of course, Martine Aubry has demonstrated her "statesmanship" by supporting Lagarde, even though her party went to court over the sweetheart deal with Tapie. Daniel Schneidermann reports:

Ross Douthat--a columnist whom I ordinarily find a bore--has an interesting column this morning. He takes the DSK affair and tries to tease out its larger meaning. And what he comes up with is this:

Moreover, no creative mind could have dreamed up an allegation better calculated to vindicate the perception that today’s Eurocrats are just a version of the old European aristocracy — exercising droit du seigneur in high-priced hotel rooms while they wait to catch a first-class flight to Paris.

His argument is that high-minded "cosmopolitan" technocrats have for decades attempted to counter the will of dozens of distinct "peoples" by creating and managing a social-democratic super-state dependent on a large influx of immigrants to sustain its generous welfare measures while fending off global competitive pressures. This technocracy, isolated from "ordinary" people, evolved into an "aristocratic" elite with its own mores and an arrogant assumption of privilege, extending, in the case of Strauss-Kahn, and if the charges against him are true, to a sort of droit de cuissage.

Douthat may be excused for dramatizing the issue--the demands of the column format are severe. And I'm not sure that the division between certain elites and "the people" is worse in Europe than in, say, the United States, where the Tea Party reaction demonstrates that anti-elitist sentiment can be virulent even if the elite considers itself entitled only to bailouts and not to women's bodies. So perhaps the problem should not be formulated in terms of the European welfare state, which is Douthat's target because it suits his prior ideological commitments. But there is a germ of an idea here that bears further reflection.

Newsletter Subscription

Site Statistics

Followers

About This Site

I have been a student and observer of French politics since 1968. In that time I've translated more than 130 books from the French, including Tocqueville's Democracy in America and Thomas Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century. I chair the seminar for visiting scholars at Harvard's Center for European Studies and am a member of the editorial board of French Politics, Culture, and Society and of The Tocqueville Review/La revue Tocqueville. You can read some of my writing on French politics and history here and a short bio here. From time to time I will include posts by other students of France and French politics (accessible via the index link "guest"). My hope is that this site will become a gathering place for all who are interested in discussing and analyzing political life in France. You can keep track of posts on Twitter by following "artgoldhammer".